To think this is a new low even for Farage?

[LouiseBrooks]

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/20/nigel-farage-accuses-jo-cox-widower-brendan-cox-of-supporting-extremism

"Farage said: “Well, of course, he would know more about extremists than me, Mr Cox. He backs organisations like Hope Not Hate, who masquerade as being lovely and peaceful, but actually pursue violent and undemocratic means.”

I really hope that Hope not Hate sue him.

Bill Sykes Dog
I do hope you can prove those allegations specifically against Hope not Hate and Brendan Cox because without specific evidence they would appear to be very defamatory.

Is that a fair paraphrase?

Only if you think "That's a slippery slope" has the same meaning as "If you do, the finger will point at you".

Which you can choose to think, if it serves your argument.

So, this is why people are saying he is trying to shut down and silence NF. Because he is saying "you can't say that".

But he isn't saying "you can't say that." That's your paraphrase. He's saying "here is one reason why that is an unwise thing to say."

If you're going to interpret all disagreement as efforts to "shut down and silence", then of course you're going to see that everywhere from "the left". (And, er, from the right as well - Nigel Farage is not exactly reluctant to disagree with people, is he?)

This idea that disagreement is silencing and censorship is serving a lot of people's interests very nicely. (It's also how we've ended up with the common refrain of "we're not allowed to talk about immigration here!", in a country that talks about nothing bloody else.)

HuffPost 2014:

m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/5304786

They're a left wing site.

Bill Sykes Dog
No - to avoid a claim for defamation you would need evidence that they were actually pursuing "violent and undemocratic" means, not just an article where Nigel Farage alleges they are

To quote the article "Farage has claimed "

That would be the same Farage who made these claims

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12088804/Nigel-Farage-I-made-a-terrible-terrible-mistake-over-assassination-attempt-claims.html

Claims which were denied by the French police.

Oh bills got a nasty little habit of getting peaceful and violent mixed up, haven't you bill.

Also, even if supporters of Hope not Hate behaved like that, it doesn't mean the organisation condoned it, much less instigated it.

I do worry about the effect of words on people's actions.

How much influence do the words, speeches etc of prominent politicians and the media have on people?

If someone has 'issues', can they be called to action by what they hear?

Dog whistle politics and all that?

A lot of the language, rhetoric and headlines out there can just add fuel to the fire and it's not hard for someone to say 'that's it" and act on it. I have no doubt that's how some lone wolfs start out - on ALL sides of this debate. Things get stirred up, this adds to their belief system that they are being persecuted, things are getting out of hand and they act on it.

The shootings in Orlando
Jo Cox's murder
Andres Brejvik
ISIS Lone wolves

How much were they influenced by what they heard? How much were they in their echo chamber?

I do worry about the rhetoric at the moment. The way groups are perceived, Them and us. The amount of fake news out there must be influencing people's thoughts.

There's no real answer. But maybe people need to think before posting and writing stuff because they don't know who might be reading and how much that could enflame situations and influence their actions.

Yes, Katie Hopkins and the DM, looking at you. And Trump.

Is that a fair paraphrase? A question, explaining that I have tried to put the tweet into clear language, but that I acknowledge I may not have got it quite right, and inviting others to say if they think my paraphrase is incorrect.

But feel free to just make a sneery comment Rhonda rather than offering your interpretation, if that suits your purposes.

You didn't ask for anyone's interpretation. You asked if it was a fair paraphrase and I posted it was only a fair paraphrase if you want to conflate two entirely different sentences.

Don't ask questions if you don't want anyone to answer.

user you seem to be using phrases like 'very defamatory' (which makes no sense by the way, something is defamatory or not, you can't be a little bit defamatory) 'libellous' in a vaguely menacing fashion despite the fact you clearly know just about as much about libel law as my Cockerpoodle. You might want to read up on whether suggestion of possibility is defamatory and the legal status of internet posts. They are around the same level as pub conversations and almost totally impossible to sue people over. MN could possibly receive a legal letter if they stayed up and were libellous and defamatory, so feel free to report. But they're not, so they won't remove them.

And anybody with even a glancing knowledge of similar laws could tell you that Hope not Hate's supposed legal action has about as much chance of succeeding as I do of finding Brad Pitt in my Xmas stocking.

The shootings in Orlando
Jo Cox's murder
Andres Breivik
ISIS Lone wolves

How much were they influenced by what they heard? How much were they in their echo chamber?

All of those people were influenced by publications/organisations who made calls to violence which were explicitly illegal. Legal measures are already there to stop people publishing or accessing this sort of thing but the internet has made it pretty much impossible to stop.

But when you've got a man like JC's murderer who has been a well known member of the farest right far right groups for almost 30 years and accessing material from extreme groups calling for violence for just as long - well to suggest that the murder he committed was inspired by Nigel Farage is a bit silly. It's a bit like suggesting Stalin's purges were inspired by Aneurin Bevan because they were vaguely on the same political side of the spectrum and were alive at the same time.

Rhonda I'm trying to have an intelligent, rational conversation about some very tricky issues. It is possible to do that, even with people you disagree with. I'm not interested in getting into tit-for-tat point scoring with you.

well to suggest that the murder he committed was inspired by Nigel Farage is a bit silly

At what point does 'the button' get pressed? At what point does someone finally decide to act? To do 'something'? Which tweet, article, misleading headline, totally made up lie, fake tweet etc...

Also, even if supporters of Hope not Hate behaved like that, it doesn't mean the organisation condoned it, much less instigated it

I agree Louise, it's wrong to hold one person responsible for the actions of another just because they happen to be in the same group, or agree on some political issues.

Me too. But you can't stop people from answering the questions you ask. Maybe just don't ask them.

ell to suggest that the murder he committed was inspired by Nigel Farage is a bit silly

I think inspired is the wrong word. I do think that the words of organisations like the DM, Farage, Hopkins etc do add to the 'mix' and add fuel to the fire.

Katie Hopkins tweeted something last year about immigrants and changing road signs. It was wrong. She did not know it was wrong but it was. It got retweeted. It may seem like a little thing but it all adds to a person's sense of anger. Anger which they may act on and take out on people.

At what point does 'the button' get pressed?

Okay. I vote that we ban Jeremy Corbin from public life because: Stalin. Okay, Jeremy Corbyn might not be espousing mass murder of millions right now, but where does the button get pressed?

Silly as the above might sound, it's not actually that far fetched. Society is moving to the right in general. I sincerely hope that we don't move to a position where left wing voices in society are silenced, because I passionately believe in freedom of political expression. But if that does happen, the left are going to have an extremely hard time arguing against it; because they have spent the last 20 years beavering away trying to curtail their opponents rights to expression it is going to be tough for them to oppose things going in the other direction. And this will be a rod they have made for their own backs I'm afraid.

Bill Absolutely.

Similarly, on the cheering on Hollywood actors trying to overthrow the US presidential election result thread, some people seems to be espousing chucking out democracy to get what they want, but don't seem to be thinking too hard that if we're going to start using non-democratic means to get our way, it's not just going to be the lovely cuddly liberals doing that is it?

I know it's moving slightly off the topic but do you have any thoughts on why society is moving to the right generally Bill ? Is it because the left has twisted itself into knots? Globalisation?

Is it the rising of the right? That is rather simplistic to me.

It seems to be the rising of something massive but I don't know if it's necessarily just simply "the right".

The left behind have intense rage directed at immigrants and what they perceive as educated rich elites who don't understand their predicament.

I think the rich elites really really do understand their predicament.

They just simply don't care. And they still don't care after Brexit and Trump is POTUS.

People like Murdoch and Arron Banks are pretty much in control now. Control of this wave.

There are very strong rumours that Trump will be impeached, but this won't happen until after his inauguration. Impeachment means the vice President, Pence, will be removed too as will all those brought to office, if successful.

I also discovered this week that IS cheered when Brexit was confirmed. That's chilling.

What are the grounds Elendon ?

IS cheered? Why?

It proves the hatred for immigrants and will provide a strong recruiting ground for those muslims who feel they are hated?

I also discovered this week that IS cheered when Brexit was confirmed. That's chilling

Would you care to expand on that a bit more? How do you know? What are the implications for them? Are you suggesting that we should make all our politically choices by doing the opposite of what IS want? (Apologies if I sound a bit sarcastic, I am not being, I would like to understand the point you are making.)